It’s been an exciting and fulfilling year since the June 27, 2017 release of my book Reclaiming Lives: Pursuing Justice for Six Innocent Men. This book recounts how those of us armed with a compassionate disposition and deep sense of duty, began a necessary campaign for justice on behalf of the six Wisconsin blue collar workers convicted of murdering fellow paper mill worker, Tom Monfils.
Book has won three national book awards since it was published in 2017
2009 book signing with (LtoR) John Gaie, Clare Martinson, Michael Piaskowski, Joan Treppa, and Denis Gullickson
This all began with another publication that details the case in a 487-page book titled The Monfils Conspiracy: The Conviction of Six Innocent Men. This book was published in 2009 by three Green Bay area residents; author Denis Gullickson and researcher John Gaie with the help of mill worker and exoneree in the case, Michael Piaskowski. Together they sifted through and documented laundry baskets full of information; a project that took eight years to complete.
The book questions the guilt of all six men and proposes a possibility that the victim, Tom Monfils, may have committed suicide; an idea that should have been but was never explored during the 1995 trial.
The years since 2009 prior to publishing my book prompted many trips back and forth from Green Bay, Wisconsin to Minneapolis, Minnesota for collaborative purposes. Those trips have not slowed one bit. The miles have, in fact, increased since I published because of the generous reception my book has received from the literary community in Brown County—the same county (with Green Bay being the county seat) where the trial took place. Good fortune has surfaced through soliciting book fests and fairs and being picked up by libraries that are embracing the premise of my book which is much more focused on the everyday folks working behind the scenes and the untold stories of the families of the convicted men.
However, although I do not claim to be an expert on either the Monfils case or on the topic of wrongful convictions, this article from the July 1, 2018 Green Bay Press-Gazette deems me as a less than qualified social justice advocate on a mission to help these men gain their deserved freedom. It quite possibly goes as far as to suggest that any and all folks calling themselves social justice advocates are inept or simply bored with nothing better to do to occupy their time. But it doesn’t take rocket science to recognize common deficiencies in all wrongful convictions. Government misconduct, Brady Rule violations, the use of jailhouse informants, and the prevalence of ineffective assistance of counsel are all aspects that make significant and unfortunate impacts on people’s lives. Because of how prevalent these deficiencies are in the Monfils case, I feel confident that all of the men in question are completely innocent. I also strongly believe that an actual crime never even occurred.
I’m not usually timid or shy but the introvert in me experiences apprehension when I’m asked to speak in front of groups—large or small—which comes with the territory of being an author. But the benefits outweigh the negatives and provide great satisfaction in knowing that I’m doing my best to make a difference for others. Going beyond what feels comfortable is necessary because real justice was never achieved for those who lost a beloved family member and because of the pain and anguish that is still plaguing the families and close friends of the six men. Being aware of how uneducated the general public is about this case and about how the criminal justice system completely failed an entire community, is another motivating factor to get the correct facts out into the open.
As a participating author for the UntitledTown Book and Author Festival in Green Bay on April 21, 2017, I was given an amazing opportunity to share more recent developments of this case right in the heart of where it happened between 1992-5. My hour-long presentation took place at the Neville Public Museum in Downtown Green Bay.
Highlighted in my presentation were the most egregious flaws of the case and exceedingly plausible evidence discovered during a more recent re-investigation of the case by a well-respected Minneapolis law firm now working on the case Pro Bono. I explained that by omitting this crucial evidence, damaging biases were directed at six men; Keith Kutska, Dale Basten, Michael Johnson, Reynold Moore, Michael Hirn, and Michael Piaskowski that ultimately sent them to prison for life. The audience heard how their rights were trampled upon when none were given the option of having their own individual trial. They learned how powerless these men were to avoid becoming pawns in an unfair game that would drastically alter the course of their lives and the lives of their families. I shared a belief that the strategy of a joint trial was designed to confuse the jury and that the State knew they had insufficient evidence to support their so-called murder theory. I stressed the State’s inability to come up with exclusive charges that proved each of the men had specific roles in a fabricated “bubbler” (water fountain) confrontation. It is the belief of many who study this case that the State banked on throwing what evidence they could come up with at the jury to see what would stick.
Unfortunately that strategy worked, as is apparent in this admission by one of those jurors years later: “It was too much to process and too easy to just make the same decision for all of the defendants.”
Much of what I shared originated as new evidence at an evidentiary hearing in 2015. Its purpose was to request a new trial for Keith Kutska; the State’s main suspect. However, this new evidence was not convincing enough for the State of Wisconsin which concluded in one of its reply briefs that “The mere fact that twenty years after this conviction Kutska has dredged up evidence that was not presented at his trial, is not a reason to give him a new trial.” They said overall, the evidence provides no real proof that a jury would have reached a different conclusion had they heard it back then. And so far, higher courts have agreed with them as all appeals that have been filed in succession since then have, so far, been denied.
Brown County courtroom during 2015 evidentiary hearing
But I and others respectfully disagree. When considering the new evidence—especially in regard to the specific knots on the rope and weight that were found on the victim—it’s easy to conclude that this death resulted in suicide.
To illustrate my point I invite you to compare the two images below. The top one is a diagram of a two half-hitch knot used in Coast Guard training. The bottom photo is of the actual rope and weight found on Tom Monfils’ body. The similarities of the knots cannot be dismissed. Furthermore, Retired Coast Guard Seaman George Jansen identified the actual knot as a two half-hitch knot during the 2015 hearing. This detail becomes very significant when we learn that Tom Monfils had been in the Coast Guard but none of the six men had. Another factor never mentioned during the 1995 trial is that when Lead Detective Randy Winkler sent the knots to the crime lab, they recommended he send them to the Coast Guard because they determined that the knots were nautical ones. Detective Winkler failed to adhere to this recommendation and the information was cast aside as irrelevant. I find it difficult to believe that the jurors would not have thought there was reasonable enough doubt to reach a different conclusion had they heard these specific pieces of information.
Photo courtesy of John Johnson
A large part of my slideshow was dedicated to analyzing the so-called confrontation near the “bubbler” and pointing out what a logistical nightmare it would have been to carry out. I stressed how unlikely it would have been to then keep this evil deed under wraps even though it supposedly happened in a very visible and well-traveled area within the mill. And to believe that all of these men and fellow mill workers alike stay silent about it to this day…is simply ludicrous and goes against the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin who said it best: “Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.”
At the museum, my designated space—a small room located down a long hallway—quickly filled to capacity. Equipped with 40 chairs, more were brought in to accommodate attendees that continued to arrive even after the program began. A cameraperson from the local news outlet WBAY Channel 2 in Green Bay arrived with mere minutes to spare before I was scheduled to begin, to do a quick interview. My sister, Clare, handed out flyers to the audience during that time.
This very brief news story was featured on the 10:00 news later that evening.
As is typical of my presentations, interviews, etc., the first minute or so is a struggle until I get my bearings. But the audience was kind. Respectful. And though many of the faces were familiar, many were not. I felt acceptance as all eyes focused on the large screen in front of them which projected photos and information carefully chosen for this local crowd that was very familiar with the case. They listened intently…like I had done on a memorable day back in 2009 when John Gaie first shared his tragic and horrific tale of injustice in my living room.
The room was quiet save for the sound of my voice and heavy sighs as a dismal tale of despair and injustice unfolded. Until the very end, no one indicated an urgency to leave. The audience continued to ask questions until it was absolutely necessary for me to pack up and make room for the next presenter.
I was grateful for this opportunity to explain to these folks why we cannot allow this injustice to continue, why we cannot forget about these men, and why it is imperative that they be granted immediate release.
Watch a 20-minute segment of my presentation on YouTube.
Order a signed copy of my book via this website or from Amazon.
